Check Playwright config

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: 'TypeScript AST, not executed' makes clear this is a side-effect-free static read, and 'Reports whether each value is a literal or a runtime expression' sets expectations for output shape. It omits edge-case behavior such as what happens when no config is found, keeping it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, with the static-analysis nature and scope placed where they matter most. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the static-analysis nature, inspected fields, and project-level scope. Only the absence of any failure/no-config behavior keeps it from being fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters (configPath, projectRoot) are fully documented in the schema, including auto-detection defaults. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Statically analyze playwright.config.*') and enumerates exactly which settings and reporters it inspects. The scope qualifier 'Project-level, not per-spec' cleanly separates it from per-spec siblings like run_playwright_test.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The mention of 'flakiness-relevant settings' implies this is a pre-flight diagnostic for flaky tests, but it never says when to reach for this tool versus check_test_prerequisites or score_test_quality. Usage is inferable but not stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.